> First off, we are aware that interactable isn't a real word. The correct form is interactive but this has connotation that isn't necessarily related to physical interactions.
Interactable would be the nouned form of interactive, so I think it's a reasonable term to use. I dunno if 'physics engine' is the right term for it, though.
What's the main motivation for this kind of stretch-and-squash animation in UIs? Just discoverability for touchscreen UI elements, and to look cool?
Physics based, maybe. A physics engine generally simulates the behaviour and interactions of a number of physically modeled entities. If it doesn't simulate collisions I wouldn't count it as a physics engine the way that term is typically used.
Interactable would be the nouned form of interactive, so I think it's a reasonable term to use. I dunno if 'physics engine' is the right term for it, though.
What's the main motivation for this kind of stretch-and-squash animation in UIs? Just discoverability for touchscreen UI elements, and to look cool?